N.L.Ganguly, J. - (1.) The petitioner was previously serving as fourth class employee at Nagarpalika Barabanki. After working for about 27 years at the Nagarpalika Barabanki there was an offer to the petitioner and other clearly situated employees for option to be taken in the U. P. State Government service specially in the service of the Education Department of the State. The petitioner opted to join the Government service and was appointed as also. Four employee by appointment letter dated 23rd July, 1987. the appointment letter shows that such employees who join the service of the State Government shall be entitled to the benefits of the service rendered with earlier employee i.e. the Nagarpalika Barabanki. It is also class that this letter of appointment was issued as a fresh letter of appointment after the petitioner had submitted his resignation before the earlier employer.
(2.) The controversy raised about the date of birth of the petitioner as to when the would retire. Admittedly the U.P. Government employees are to retire after completion of 58 years of age. The petitioner's service record originally maintained at the Nagarpalika. Barabanki had an entry showing the date of birth as 13-3-1933. Subsequently that entry was secured off and it was replaced by another entry as 30-10-1934. The question is as to which of the two dates is correct for determining the age of retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of birth as shown after correction is 13-10-1934 is the correct date and the petitioner's date of retirement is to be calculated treating the said date is the correct date of his birth. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out in appointment to the petition which is a letter of the officer Superintendent of the Nagarpalika Barabanki dated 23-10-1974 to submit the original certificate free any educational institution or a certificate from Civil Surgeon, Barabanki about the date of birth or probable age of the petitioner. In pursuance of the letter dated 23-10-1974 the petitioner obtained a certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki dated 30-10-1974 by which the Chief Medical Officer certified that the age of the petitioner on the date of the certificate was 45 years. This certificate was by the petitioner before the Nagarpalika and they accordingly corrected the record and the date of birth as 13-10-1974.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari respondent, controverted the allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition and produced the original service record of the petitioner maintained at the Nagarpalika. It was argued by Mrs. Asthens that there is a rule framed by the State of U. P. dated 28th May, 1974 which prohibits any correction in the date of birth recorded in the service record of a State Government employer. On the basis of this service rule it was argued that the Nagarpalika could not entertain any application for correction of date of birth or age nor could make any correction in the age already recorded in the service record. Her submission is misconceived. The Rules framed at the relevant time by the State of U. P. were not ipso facto applicable to the Nagarpalika, Barabanki. Further the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the entry after correction is not authenticsated and bare no initial of the officer who actually corrected it. Since this service record has seen from the source i.e. the Nagarpalika, in my opinion it would into any much to say that a fourth class employee would have accent to set it corrected. The argument would have been available to the learned counsel for the respondent but in view of the fact that the letter was issued by the Office Superintendent of the Nagarpalika calling for such a certificate from Civil Surgeon which was submitted by the petitioner, shows that i* was not a clandestine act of the petitioner to get such manipulation in the service record.;